# Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4610 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-shukla-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54892
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Police Radio Adhinashth
Sewa
Niyamawali
2015-Clause
8(c)-
Niyamawali 2015 prescribes diploma as
the minimum qualification for the post of
Head Operator(Mechanical) in U.P. Police
Radio Cadre-The police recruitment board
exceeded its jurisidiction by issuing a
2021 order equating a B.E./B.Tech degree
to a diploma without State Government
approval-Candidates who participated in
the recruitment process based on 2021
board
decision
had
a
legitimate
expectation
of
eligibility-The
midway
change in eligibility after the exam was
conducted was illegal violating principles
of
fairness
and
non-arbitrarinessRecruitment
rules.
once
set
in
an
advertisement cannot be altered during
the process-Held, the entire selection
process is vitiated and set aside due to
administrative mismanagement and lack
of clarity on eligibility-The entire selection
process
is
canceled,
and
a
fresh
recruitment drive must be initiated. (Para
1 to 33)

The writ petitions are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,761 of 40,956. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39761 for what follows._

424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
combined hospital which in the meanwhile
had come up and its construction was
complete and had become operational. The
petitioner joined the hospital on 01.03.2016
and continued till 12.12.2024. The said
hospital undoubtedly has come up in the
same premises as Community Health
Centre, Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki.

13. This Court has also noticed that the
Community Health Centre Sirauli Gauspur,
Barabanki is included as a rural posting. The said
entry has been made only on account of the fact
that the said place is more than 25 km. away
from the district headquarter as has been stated in
the Government Order dated 15.03.2022. Once
the Community Health Centre, Sirauli Gauspur,
Barabanki has been held to be a rural posting,
this Court does not find any reason why as to
another hospital even though a hundred beded
hospital situated in the same premises would not
be considered to be a rural posting for a limited
purposes of grant of 'No Objection Certificate'
for the entrance of NEET PG Examinaiton-2024.

14. Accordingly, this Court finds that there
is no reason forthcoming for denial of the benefit
for having worked in the hundred beded
combined hospital at Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki,
which is also equally distance as the Community
Health Centre, Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned
order dated 21.01.2025 has been passed solely
on a consideration that the Community Health
Centre, Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki has been
mentioned as a rural posting in the Government
Order dated 15.03.0222 while the entry with
regard to a hundred beded combined hospital is
not included. Apart from the above, this Court
does not find any consideration by the
respondents with regard to as to whether Sirauli
Gauspur, Barabanki would be considered as a
rural posting or not? It is not the case of the
respondents that the hundred beded combined
hospital Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki would not
be included as a rural posting but only till date it
has not declared to be a rural posting.

15. Accordingly, this Court find that the
respondents have not adequately considered the
grounds for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'
to the petitioner, and even otherwise, this Court
does not find any reason as to why the
respondents could have denied the benefit to the
petitioner for having worked at the hundred
beded combined hospital for more than eight
years which is situated in the same compound
as the Community Health Centre, which has
been declared to be a rural posting.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner
is duly entitled to be granted a 'No Objection
Certificate' for having worked in the rural area
for the period she has worked at Community
Health Centre, Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki as
well the hundred beded combined hospital at
Sirauli Gauspur, Barabanki.

16. In light of the above, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated
21.01.2025 is set aside.

17. The respondents are directed to grant a
'No Objection Certificate' forthwith to the
petitioner, so that she can participate in the
NEET PG Examination-2024.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 4610 of 2024
With
Writ-A No. 7284 of 2024

Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ripu Daman Shahi, Chhaya Tripathi, Vivek
Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shireesh Kumar, Utkarsh Kumar

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Police Radio Adhinashth
Sewa
Niyamawali
2015-Clause
8(c)-
Niyamawali 2015 prescribes diploma as
the minimum qualification for the post of
Head Operator(Mechanical) in U.P. Police
Radio Cadre-The police recruitment board
exceeded its jurisidiction by issuing a
2021 order equating a B.E./B.Tech degree
to a diploma without State Government
approval-Candidates who participated in
the recruitment process based on 2021
board
decision
had
a
legitimate
expectation
of
eligibility-The
midway
change in eligibility after the exam was
conducted was illegal violating principles
of
fairness
and
non-arbitrarinessRecruitment
rules.
once
set
in
an
advertisement cannot be altered during
the process-Held, the entire selection
process is vitiated and set aside due to
administrative mismanagement and lack
of clarity on eligibility-The entire selection
process
is
canceled,
and
a
fresh
recruitment drive must be initiated. (Para
1 to 33)

The writ petitions are partly allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Neil Aurelio Nunes(OBC Reservation) Vs
U.O.I. (2022) 4 SCC 1

2. K. Manjusree Vs St. of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512
: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841

3. Mah. SRTC Vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve
(2001) 10 SCC 51: 2002 SCC (L&S) 720

4. Tej Prakash Pathak Vs Raj. HC (2013) 4 SCC
540: (2013)2 SCC (L&S) 353

5. Prerit Sharma Vs Bilu B.S. (2022) 2 SCC 751
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi along
with Ms. Chhaya Tripathi and Sri Pradeep
Kumar Mishra for the petitioners, learned
Additional Chief Standing counsel on
behalf of State-respondent No.s 1 and 2 and
Sri Shireesh Kumar and Sri Utkarsh Kumar
for respondent No.s 3 and 4.

2. Sri Shireesh Kumar has moved an
application for impleadment stating that the
applicants are necessary party considering
the fact that they have also participated in
the selection for the post of Head Operator
/ Head Operator (Mechanical) in U.P.
Police Radio Cadre and are diploma
holders and has sought to be impleaded as a
respondent.

3. The application for impleadment is
not opposed by the learned Counsel for
petitioners and on consideration of the
application for impleadment, we find that
the applicants are necessary parties and
accordingly,
the
application
for
impleadment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
is directed to implead them as respondents.

5. Since common questions of facts
and law are involved in both the writ
petitions, as such, they are being heard and
decided by this common judgment and
order. All the parties have been heard at
length including Sri Shireesh Kumar,
counsel
for
the
respondents
and
accordingly, with the consent of the parties,
the Court is proceeding to dispose of the
petition at the admission stage itself.

6. It has been submitted by counsel for
the petitioners that an advertisement was
issued on 06.01.2022 by the Additional
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretary (Recruitment) Uttar Pradesh
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
Lucknow inviting online applications for
the post of Head Operator / Head Operator
(Mechanic)
in
the
Police
Radio
Department. It has been submitted that in
Clause 3.2 of the said advertisement, the
qualifications were prescribed as per the
provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh
Police Radio Adhinasth Sewa Niyamawali ,
2015

where
in
Clause
8(c)
the
qualifications required for the post of Head
Operator / Head Operator (Mechanic) are
that the candidate should have passed three
years diploma course in Electronics /
Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer
Science
/
Information
Technology
/
Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical
Engineering by a board established by law
in India or a qualification recognized by the
Government as equivalent thereto.

7. The petitioners, who are degree
holders in various branches of engineering
considering themselves to be eligible had
applied for participation in the said
recruitment and they were also issued
admit cards for appearing in the online
examinations and the written examination
was conducted on 31.01.2024. It has been
submitted by counsel for the petitioners
that prior to publication of the said
advertisement, the Police Recruitment
Board had taken a decision on 25.08.2021
where it was resolved that the candidates
having four years as Bachelor of
Engineering (BE) / Bachelor of Technology
(B.Tech)
in
stream
like
Electrical,
Mechanical,
Electronics,
information
Technology,
Computer
Science
and
Telecommunication were also to be treated
as eligible on account of them having
higher qualifications. Accordingly, the
reading
of
the
advertisement
dated
06.01.2022 along with the resolution of the
Police Recruitment Board, the petitioners
were in a bonafide belief that they were
fully eligible to participate in the said
selection. After the written examination the
answer key of the said result was also
published
by
the
respondents
on
06.02.2024.

8. Before any further steps could be
taken by the Police Recruitment Board,
by means of order dated 23.04.2024, a
decision of the Board was communicated
to the effect that the previous order of the
Board
dated
25.08.2021
has
been
substantially modified and now it is
provided that four years degree in
Engineering of different streams have
been held to be ineligible for recruitment
to the post of Head Operator / Head
Operator (Mechanic).

9. The petitioners, who are degree
holders
in
various
streams
of
Engineering,
who
had
applied
and
participated in the said recruitment
process have now been held to be
ineligible and have approached this Court
assailing the decision of the respondents
and have
submitted
that
once
the
respondents have held the petitioners to
be eligible and on the basis of said
resolution, they have participated in the
said examination than in the middle of
the recruitment process the terms and
conditions of the recruitment cannot be
changed and accordingly, have assailed the
validity of the order dated 23.04.2024 and
further sought a direction to the respondent
to treat the petitioners as eligible on
account of them having a degree of
Bachelor of Engineering and permitted
them to participate in the said recruitment
process and appoint them on the various
post in case, they are declared to be
selected.
1 All. Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427

10. It has been submitted by counsel
for the petitioners that according to the
service rules, a person who possesses a
diploma in various streams of Engineering
or any other equivalent qualification would
be eligible to participate in the said
recruitment.
With
regard
to
the
equivalence, the Police Recruitment Board
by order dated 25.08.2021 had declared
that the persons possessing a degree of
Engineering in various streams would also
be eligible considering the fact that the
degree is a higher qualification than
diploma. It is on account of the deliberate
decision taken by the Police Recruitment
Board that the petitioners participated in
the recruitment process and have legitimate
expectation with regard to their eligibility
and
accordingly,
submits
that
the
respondents could not have passed the
impugned order treating them to be
ineligible
after
permitting
them
to
participate in the written examination and
also publishing the answer key, accordingly
prayed for a direction to the respondents to
treat them as eligible in the said selection
process and declare their results.

11.
Learned
Standing
Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the State as well as
the Police Recruitment Board on the other
hand has opposed the writ petition and it
has been submitted that there is no doubt
with regard to the fact that according to the
service rules, the eligibility for the post of
Head Operator / Head Operator (Mechanic)
is a diploma in the various streams of
Engineering
or
any other
equivalent
qualifications.
With
regard
to
the
equivalence of the qualification, he has
submitted that it is only the State
Government which can determine the said
equivalence and, the Police Recruitment
Board was denuded of any power and had
wrongly exercised its power while passing
the order dated 25.08.2021 declaring
Engineering to be equivalent to a diploma
and declaring that the Engineering degree
to be higher qualification than Diploma and
consequently,
such
persons
holding
engineering degree would be ineligible for
participating in the said recruitment. Order
dated 25/08/2021 amounts to declaration of
equivalence which power is not vested in
the
Police
Recruitment
Board.
Accordingly,
the
order
dated
21.08.2021was illegal and arbitrary and as
soon as the said issue came to the notice of
the respondents, they had proceeded to pass
the impugned order annulling the same. He
submits that the Board has sufficient power
to resile from any order which has been
passed by them, which is contrary to the
rules and accordingly, they have inherent
power of reviewing the order and hence in
exercise
of
the
power,
they
have
substantially modified the order dated
25.08.2021 and restoring the status quo
ante and declaring the persons like the
petitioners,
who
are
possessing
qualification of degree in Engineering to be
not qualified for participating in the said
selection process or being appointed on the
post of Head Operator / Head Operator
(Mechanic)

12. Sri Shireesh Kumar, appearing on
behalf of the candidates possessing a
diploma, has submitted that in fact there is
no dispute with regard to the eligibility of
candidates, who are eligible to participate
in the said recruitment process. He has
submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Police
Radio Subordinate Service Rules , 2015 are
very clear in terms and Rule 8 clearly
provides the qualifications to be possessed
by a person, who can participate or be
appointed on the said post. He submits that
the equivalence, if any, would have been
with the diploma qualifications. In any
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view of the matter, a degree can never be
equivalent to a diploma and therefore, from
the very start the Board had illegally passed
the order dated 25.08.2021 which they have
sought to rectify by means of the impugned
order dated 23.04.2024 and accordingly,
has opposed the writ petition and prayed
for dismissal of the same.

13. I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the record.

14. Without reiterating the facts as
discussed
herein
above,
this
Court
proceedes to consider the rival contentions.
The Police Recruitment Board proceeded to
issue the order dated 25.08.2021 declaring
that the degree is a higher qualification than
diploma, and accordingly holding that
candidates having degree in the respective
fields would also be eligible for the post of
Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanic).
The dispute has arisen on account of the
subsequent order dated 23/04/2024 where
the Police Recruitment Board had noticed
certain
judgments
with
regard
to
equivalence and has taken a decision that
even during an ongoing selection process
they could change the qualifications and
hence proceeded to pass the impugned
order dated 23/04/24.

15. This
Court
has
taken
into
consideration
the
arguments
of
the
respondents that the Police Recruitment
Board had exceeded its jurisdictions where
it proceeded to pass the order dated
25.08.2021 thereby making a degree to be
equivalent to a diploma and accordingly,
permitted all the persons possessing a
degree in the streams of engineering
eligible to participate in the examination
for the Head Operator / Head Operator
(Mechanic). It is on the strength of the
order passed by the Police Recruitment
Board that the petitioners had applied and
participated in the recruitment process. It
has further been brought to the notice of
this Court that the Police Recruitment
Board further proceeded to ratify the order
dated
25/08/2021
by
order
dated
01.04.2024. In the order dated 01.04.2024,
they had reiterated the stand that the
persons who possess four years degree in
engineering, which is a higher degree than
a diploma and accordingly, such candidate
would also be permitted to participate in
the said selection process.

16. Undoubtedly, considering the
provisions of section 8 of the U.P police
Subordinate Service Rules the Police
Recruitment Board had exceeded its
jurisdiction by interpreting the provisions
of the eligibility conditions in the service
rules pertaining to the eligibility of the
candidates for appointment to the post of
Head
Operator
/
Head
Operator
(Mechanic), holding that degree would be
equivalent to a diploma. It is the order
dated 25.08.2021 that has permitted the
petitioners and the other persons possessing
degree in engineering to determine that
they are eligible to participate in the said
recruitment process. The rules as it stands
out today clearly indicate that it is only the
diploma holders who are eligible to be
appointed to the post of Head Operator /
Head Operator (Mechanic). The Board, in
exercise of its power to process the
selection is an executive body tasked only
to carry out the machinery provisions of
recruitment. They are not the appointing
authority or the controlling authority of the
persons who they seek to recruit. They
must comply with various service rules
which provide for eligibility conditions of
the candidates who are to be recruited.
They are bound by the conditions of service
rule, and they are totally incompetent to
1 All. Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
issue any clarification with regard to the
eligibility of the candidates who are to
participated in the recruitment process.
Such an order passed by the relevant
recruitment board was at the very start
arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Subsequently, they proceeded to ratify
the order by means of order dated
31.01.2024 and subsequently, in a few
days they took a u-turn and by means of
the impugned order dated 23.04.2024
stated that they substantially modified
the previous order dated 25.08.2021 and
further to declare that the candidates
having qualification of four years' degree
course of engineering would not be
eligible
to
participate
in
the
said
recruitment
examination.
When
the
Police Recruitment Board was aware of
the fact that they could not determine or
modify
or
change
the
eligibility
conditions
then
they
should
have
refrained
from
making
any
statement/declaration with regard to the
eligibility of persons possessing a degree
in the impugned order dated 23.04.2024.
It was only the State government who
could have passed any order pertaining to
the equivalence.

17. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear
that merely because of the unauthorized
and unlawful interference of the Police
Recruitment Board by issuing the order
dated 25.08.2021 and subsequently, issuing
orders on 01.04.2024 and 23.04.2024 the
entire selection process has been called in
question and majority of the candidates are
not aware as to whether they are eligible to
participate or they are ineligible to
participate
in
the
said
recruitment
examination. We have been informed by
the learned standing counsel that 75% of
the candidates who have participated in the
selection process are engineering degree
holders.

18. On the face of it, degree holders
who may not have been eligible to
participate in the said examination were
held to be eligible and they were allowed to
participate. It is not only the petitioners but
other innocent candidates, who may be
possessing degree in engineering but after
reading the advertisement, may have
rightly concluded that it is diploma holders
who are only qualified to participate in the
said examination would not have applied
for
participation
in
the
said
exam.
Accordingly, the arbitrary orders passed by
the Police Recruitment Board prior to
commencement of the said examination as
well as during the said examination
pertaining to the eligibility have vitiated the
entire examination. We further take notice
of the fact that despite the passing of the
order dated 25/08/2021, the advertisement
which
was
issued
subsequently
on
06/01/2022 did not provide eligibility to
the engineering graduates. There is no
doubt that the law in this regard is very
clear and it has been consistently held by
the Supreme Court as well as by this
Court that the terms and conditions as
laid down in the advertisement for
recruitment cannot be altered or changed
during the course of the recruitment
process.
Once
the
advertisement
is
published, the recruitment agencies are
required to scrupulously follow the
guidelines
and
the
qualifications
prescribed therein and no variation or
deviation is permitted in the same. The
Supreme Court has considered this aspect
in the case of Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC
Reservation) v. Union of India, (2022) 4
SCC 1 and also considered various other
Supreme Court decisions as under:-
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"79. In K. Manjusree v. State of
A.P. [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008)
3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] , the
selection of candidates to ten vacant posts
of District and Sessions Judges (Grade II)
in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher
Judicial Service was the subject-matter of
the appeal. The selection and appointments
to the post of District and Sessions Judges
(Grade II) are governed by the Andhra
Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1958. The Rules prescribe that onethird of the posts are to be filled by direct
recruitment. However, the method of
recruitment is not prescribed in the Rules.
Therefore, the High Court determines the
method of selection when the vacancies are
notified. An advertisement was issued on
28-5-2004 calling for applications. The
Administrative Committee by its resolution
dated 30-11-2004 decided to conduct a
written examination for seventy-five marks
and an interview for twenty-five marks, and
prescribed minimum category marks for the
written examination. The exam was held on
30-1-2005. The results were declared on
24-2-2005. The merit list was prepared by
aggregating the marks obtained in the
written examination out of 100 and the
interview for 25 marks. However, the Full
Court did not agree with the selection list
and another Committee of Judges was
constituted to prepare the list. The
Committee was of the view that the select
list changed the proportion of marks of the
written exam to the interview from 3 : 1 to
4 : 1 since the written exam marks (out of
100) were not converted to 75 marks. The
Sub-Committee also directed that there
must be minimum marks for the interview
component, in the same cut-off percentage
as applied to the written test component.
Another selection list was prepared based
on
the
revised
selection
criteria.
Candidates whose names were featured in
the first select list but were absent in the
second list, challenged the second selection
list.

80. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court in K. Manjusree case [K. Manjusree
v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008)
1 SCC (L&S) 841] , held that the scaling
down of marks in the written exam in
proportion to the maximum of 75 marks
was valid since it was in consonance with
the resolution dated 30-11-2004. However,
it was observed that introducing minimum
marks in the interview component "after
the entire selection process (consisting of
written examination and interview) was
completed, would amount to changing the
rules of the game after the game was
played which is clearly impermissible".
(SCC p. 524, para 27) The facts in K.
Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S)
841] differ from the factual matrix before
us since the impugned notice notifying
reservation in the AIQ was introduced even
before the examination was held. Further,
unlike the case before us, there was in that
case, a change in the selection criteria.

81. In Maharashtra SRTC v.
Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [Maharashtra
SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve,
(2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] ,
the selection to the post of drivers and
conductors was in question. The writ
petitionerss satisfied the qualifications and
possessed the requisite experience. A total
of 12.5% marks was initially allotted to the
personal interview component. However, a
change in the criteria for selection was
introduced after the driving test was
conducted. This Court then held that the
new criteria was invalid since it proposed
to change the rules of the game after the
game had begun. In Umrao Singh v.
Punjabi University [Umrao Singh v.
Punjabi University, (2005) 13 SCC 365 :
1 All. Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
2006 SCC (L&S) 1071] , this Court held
that the selection norms for selection to the
posts of lecturers could not have been
relaxed after the last date for making the
application and after the process for
selection had started.

82. In Tej Prakash Pathak v.
Rajasthan High Court [Tej Prakash
Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4
SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , the
Rajasthan
High
Court
had
called
applications for the post of "translators".
According to the Rajasthan High Court
Staff Service Rules, 2002, 100 marks was
prescribed for the written exam and 50
marks for the personal interview. After the
exam was conducted, 75% marks were
prescribed as the qualifying marks in the
written
examination.
Chelameswar,
J.
writing for a three-Judge Bench observed
that changing the "rules of the game"
midstream or after the game has been
played is an "aspect of retrospective lawmaking power". This Court held that the
principle
applied
in
Manjusree
[K.
Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC
512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] , without
further scrutiny would not further public
justice and efficient administration. This
Court referred the question to a larger
Bench in the following terms [ The Bench
noticed the judgment in State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC
220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 where the
Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
State to not appoint all candidates who had
secured
the
minimum
percentage
of
marks.] : (Tej Prakash Pathak case [Tej
Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court,
(2013) 4 SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S)
353] , SCC pp. 545-46, para 15)

"15. No doubt it is a salutary
principle not to permit the State or its
instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules
of the game" insofar as the prescription of
eligibility criteria is concerned as was done
in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore
[C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore,
AIR 1965 SC 1293] , etc. in order to avoid
manipulation of the recruitment process
and its results. Whether such a principle
should be applied in the context of the
"rules of the game" stipulating the
procedure for selection more particularly
when the change sought is to impose a
more rigorous scrutiny for selection
requires an authoritative pronouncement of
a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore,
order that the matter be placed before the
Hon'ble
Chief
Justice
of
India
for
appropriate orders in this regard."

83. In Prerit Sharma v. Bilu B.S.
[Prerit Sharma v. Bilu B.S., (2022) 2 SCC
751] , the Information Bulletin for NEETSS 2020 was issued on 3-8-2020. The
examination was held on 15-9-2020, and
the results were declared on 25-9-2020.
Clause 5.16 of the Information Bulletin that
was released when the registration process
had begun stipulated that there would be
no reservation in the SS courses. The
Medical Counselling Committee issued the
counselling scheme for AIQ for NEET-SS
course
2020-2021
in
which
it
was
mentioned
that
there
would
be
no
reservation for the SS courses by referring
to the judgments of this Court in Preeti
Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of
M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742]
and Sandeep v. Union of India [Sandeep v.
Union of India, (2016) 2 SCC 328 : 7
SCEC 518] . The counselling for the SS
course was postponed. The State of Tamil
Nadu issued GOMS No. 462 dated 7-112020 stipulating that 50% of the SS seats in
government medical colleges in the State of
Tamil Nadu would be reserved for inservice candidates. This Court observed
that when the process for admissions to the
SS courses had begun, it was notified
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
through the Information Bulletin that there
would be no reservation in the SS courses.
Therefore, it was held that reservation for
in-service doctors shall not be permitted
for the current academic year."

19. In the present case, we find that
after issuing of the advertisement, the
Police Recruitment Board has passed the
order varying the eligibility conditions of
the candidates after publication of the
advertisement, after conduct of the written
examination and declaration of the answer
key and such course of action during the
recruitment
process
is
totally
impermissible.

20. The issue for consideration is
whether the entire selection process stands
vitiated in the facts of the present case,
where doubt has been created regarding the
eligibility of candidates to participate in the
said selection process. It has been informed
that about 75% of the total number of
candidates who participated in the selection
process
possesses
engineering
degree.
Undoubtedly,
the
fact
that
the
advertisement did not list an engineering
degree as an eligible qualification, yet
allowing
engineering
graduates
to
participate, clearly demonstrates that the
selection process was unfair and arbitrary
from the very start.

21. Subsequently, by order dated
01.04.2024, the selection board reiterated
its stand regarding the equivalence of an
engineering degree with a diploma. The
final nail in the coffin was the impugned
order dated 23.04.2024, wherein the
selection board concluded that only the
State Government could issue orders
concerning the equivalence of educational
qualifications required for participation in
the selection process. Consequently, the
board rescinded its earlier order dated
25.08.2021 and proceeded to hold that an
engineering degree would not qualify as an
educational
qualification
rendering
a
candidate ineligible to participate in the
said selection process.

22. One of the hallmarks of any
selection process is the fairness and
transparency with which it is conducted.
All eligible candidates have a right to be
informed about the eligibility conditions of
the
examination
prior
to
its
commencement, and the advertisement
must clearly specify the exact eligibility
criteria required from applicants. These
conditions must undoubtedly align with the
service rules, which outline the prescribed
eligibility requirements. Any deviation
from the conditions stipulated in the rules
would vitiate the entire selection process,
rendering it illegal and arbitrary, and
thereby subject to judicial interference in
appropriate proceedings.

23. Recently a Bench of Seven
Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court has
answered the reference in the case of in the
case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan
High Court and others Civil Appeal
No.2634 of 2013 where the terms of
reference were:-

"1. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court
while
accepting
the
salutary
principle that once the recruitment process
commences the State or its instrumentality
cannot tinker with the "rules of the game"
insofar as the prescription of eligibility
criteria is concerned, wondered whether
that should apply to the procedure for
selection. In that context, doubting the
correctness of a coordinate Bench decision
in K. Manjusree2 for not having noticed an
earlier
decision
in
Subash
Chander
1 All. Ravi Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
Marwaha3, vide order4 dated 20 March
2013, it was directed that the matter be
placed before the Chief Justice for
constituting
a
larger Bench
for
an
authoritative
pronouncement
on
the
subject.

The reference was answered in
the following terms after considering
numerous judgements in this regard:-

42. We, therefore, answer the
reference in the following terms:

(1)
Recruitment
process
commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and
ends with filling up of vacancies;

(2) Eligibility criteria for being
placed in the Select List, notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the
recruitment process unless the extant Rules
so permit, or the advertisement, which is
not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit.
Even if such change is permissible under
the extant Rules or the advertisement, the
change would have to meet the requirement
of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy
the test of non-arbitrariness;

(3) The decision in K. Manjusree
(supra) lays down good law and is not in
conflict with the decision in Subash
Chander
Marwaha
(supra).
Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the
right to be appointed from the Select List
whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with
the right to be placed in the Select List. The
two cases therefore deal with altogether
different issues;

(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to
the extant Rules, may devise appropriate
procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved.

(5) Extant Rules having statutory
force are binding on the recruiting body
both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent,
or silent, administrative instructions may
fill in the gaps;

(6) Placement in the select list
gives no indefeasible right to appointment.
The State or its instrumentality for bona
fide reasons may choose not to fill up the
vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the
State
or
its
instrumentality
cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person
within the zone of consideration in the
select list."

24. In the present case, the petitioners
would not have been eligible to participate
in
the
selection
process
since
an
engineering degree was not prescribed as a
requisite qualification. However, guided by
the decision of the selection board dated
25.08.2021, they applied for and were
permitted to participate in the written
examination.

25. The decision of the selection board
dated 25.08.2021 declaring engineering
degree holders eligible was questionable, as
any determination of equivalence between
an engineering degree and a diploma
should have been made solely by the State
Government in accordance with Rule 8 of
the said rules. Recognizing its mistake, the
selection board attempted to rectify the
error
through
the
impugned
order,
declaring
engineering
degree
holders
ineligible to participate in the selection
process.

26. Such an exercise, carried out
during the selection process, strikes at the
very root of its fairness and transparency.
Determining or clarifying the eligibility of
candidates after the commencement of the
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
selection process is inherently flawed, as
such matters should have been resolved
before the publication of the advertisement.
This failure to finalize eligibility conditions
in a timely manner vitiates the entire
selection process.

27. Once a selection process is
initiated, the foundational elements of the
process cannot be changed or altered until
its completion, as in the present case the
service rules do not provide for any change
being made during the selection process.
Eligibility
conditions,
examination
procedures, and marking patterns are
foundational elements of any selection
process and must be explicitly stated in the
advertisement, which, in turn, should
adhere to the relevant service rules. Any
change
or
amendment
to
these
fundamentals after the publication of the
advertisement and before the declaration of
results is impermissible.

28. The advertisement serves a crucial
purpose: informing prospective applicants
about the rules, conditions, and guidelines
governing
the
selection
process.
It
establishes a legitimate expectation for
candidates
regarding
the
method
of
selection.
Based
on
the
information
provided in the advertisement, candidates
may take decision about whether to
participate in the process.

29. Similarly, the authorities are bound
by the terms and conditions they have set
forth in the advertisement. Therefore, it is
imperative that the foundational elements
laid out in the advertisement remain
unchanged,
as
any
alterations
could
unfairly disadvantage candidates. In the
present case, the respondents' conflicting
orders
concerning
the
fundamental
eligibility criteria undermine the integrity
of the selection process, rendering the
entire exercise liable to be set aside.

30. After holding that the impugned
order dated 24/04/2024 is illegal and
arbitrary, the question which arises is as to
whether the petitioners would be entitled to
participate in the recruitment process on the
strength of the order dated 25/08/2021?

31. This aspect of the matter has also
been discussed above, and this Court is of
the considered opinion that setting aside of
the order dated 24/04/2024 would not have
the effect of reviving the previous order
dated 25/08/2021, which itself was illegal
and
arbitrary
having
been
passed
unauthorizedly by the Police Recruitment
Board, and even otherwise is also dehors
the provisions of the Rule 8 of the relevant
service rules which only prescribes the
eligible candidates to possess diploma in
the relevant field of engineering. On plain
reading of the service rules the degree
holders would not be eligible, as only
diploma holders in respect of stream of
engineering would be eligible subject to
any order passed by the State government
regarding equivalence. Accordingly, no
direction as sought by the petitioners can be
passed in their favour for permitting them
to participate further in the selection
process in absence of any order of
equivalence having been passed by the
State government.

32. Accordingly, we find that the
entire selections which has been conducted
stands
vitiated
on
account
of
the
unwarranted interference and passing of
orders by the Police Recruitment Board and
also
considering
that
a
substantial
percentage (about 75%) of the candidates
are adversely affected by the illegal and
arbitrary interference of the selection
1 All. Anil Kumar Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
board. Accordingly, the entire selection as
such is set aside. The respondents are
directed to finalize the eligibility conditions
and amend the service rules, in case they so
desire. Once they have taken a decision in
this regard, they should publish a fresh
advertisement
clearly
indicating
the
eligibility conditions for the qualification
for the post of Head Operator / Head
Operator (Mechanic) and after publishing
of the said advertisement they should
conduct the recruitment process and
conclude the same at the earliest in
accordance with law. Since two and half
years have lapsed since the advertisement
was issued and many of the candidates may
have become overage, and considering it is
only
on
account
of
the
acts
of
omission/commission of the respondents
that the present recruitment is being set
aside, it would be in the interest of justice,
to permit such candidates who possess
requisite educational qualifications and
have participated in the present recruitment
process
to
participate
in
the
next
recruitment process, ignoring only their
requirement of age.

33. In light of the above, both the writ
petitions are partly allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 435
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 8637 of 2024

Anil Kumar Gangwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shireesh Kumar, Utkarsh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anagh Shukla, Jyotinjay Verma,
Ratnesh Chandra

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Petiioner
retired
on
30.04.2021-initially his pension was fixed
at Rs.